-LRB- CNN -RRB- -- A one-time American-based Islamic group can not sue the government over claims it was targeted by the government 's once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program , a federal court has ruled .

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday unanimously tossed out a lawsuit by the now-closed Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation . The federal government had listed the Ashland , Oregon , chapter as a supporter of terrorism in 2004 .

The group sued , saying its private overseas communications were unconstitutionally being monitored under the Bush administration 's warrantless wiretap program . That spy program was unveiled in a 2005 New York Times article that said government officials were working with private telecom companies to secretly monitor telephone and e-mail traffic of targeted individuals and groups , both domestic and international .

Federal officials later publicly acknowledged the existence of the program , which was then officially authorized by Congress in 2008 .

`` This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs ' ongoing attempts to hold the Executive Branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization , '' said the appeals court .

The decision overturns a federal judge 's earlier award of more than $ 2.5 million to attorneys working for Al-Haramain .

At issue was whether the federal government was liable from such suits . The Bush administration in 2008 had separately granted the telecom companies `` retroactive immunity '' from any lawsuits .

The appeals court said Congress had never waived immunity for government officials over alleged state eavesdropping , even if constitutional rights were violated as a result of improper government conduct .

`` Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information , but can not bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself , '' the court concluded . `` Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair , the policy judgment is one for Congress , not the courts . ''

The Islamic foundation said two of its U.S.-based lawyers had their telephone conversations with clients in Saudi Arabia secretly monitored , without a judge 's prior approval . Lawyers for the group said they were in a Catch-22 , unable to prove the government used the information from the wiretaps against Al-Haramain , after the government cited national security and state secrets .

While ruling for the government , the appeals court sharply criticized Justice Department lawyers who had claimed in court papers the plaintiffs were engaged in `` game-playing '' by continuing their lawsuit for years .

`` In light of the complex , ever-evolving nature of this litigation , and considering the significant infringement on individual liberties that would occur if the Executive Branch were to disregard congressionally-mandated procedures for obtaining judicial authorization of international wiretaps , the charge of ` game-playing ' lobbed by the government is as careless as it is inaccurate , '' said Judge Margaret McKeown , writing on behalf of her two colleagues .

The case is al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama -LRB- No. 11-15468 -RRB- .

@highlight

Al-Haramain said its overseas communications were illegally monitored

@highlight

Court said Congress never waived immunity for government officials

@highlight

Justice Department was sharply criticized by appeals court